Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Disagreement is the New Terrorism

The Obama Administration sees no "axis of evil" and speaks no "war on terror." So who do we hear them label as terrorists? Answer: Thomas Lauria, an attorney who represented an Indiana teacher’s pension fund in the Chrysler bankruptcy litigation. Ms Underestimated transcribes an email exchange between Matthew Feldman, a lawyer on the President’s Auto Task Force, and Robert Manzo, a restructuring expert:
Robert Manzo, Chrysler restructuring expert: "I hope you think it’s worth giving this one more shot."

Matthew Feldman, attorney on the President’s Auto Task Force: "I’m now not talking to you. You went where you shouldn’t."

Manzo: "Sorry. I didn’t mean to say the wrong thing and I obviously did. I was trying to make sure that if we had to contribute to the solution you knew we had some room. Sorry I did not realize the mistake!!"

Feldman: "It’s over. The President doesn’t negotiate second rounds. We’ve given and lent billions of dollars so your team could manage this properly. . . And now you’re telling me to bend over to a terrorist like Lauria? That’s B.S."
Rand Simberg calls it "Defining terrorism down." True, but down to what? Apparently, legal arguments and free speech with which the Administration disagrees are the new terrorism.

(via The Corner)

1 comment:

Assistant Village Idiot said...

They want to feel brave, having faced down really bad guys, just like the heroes in the comic books.

No, really. I'm not just trying to be clever and insulting here. The motivation of believing that you are the sort who faces down dragons is important to people who are essentially cowards. That's why they become bullies. And that is also why they try to make their enemies seem much more evil and fierce.